Sita

Posts tagged politics

143 notes

What we say is that in order for Mom to be able to go on welfare if she has a child out of wedlock, you have to tell us who the father is…If you don’t tell us who the father is, you’re not eligible for any welfare benefits, none, not even medical care. You tell us who the father is or you don’t receive benefits…If Mom knows that she isn’t gonna receive welfare if she doesn’t tell us who Dad is, y’know maybe she’ll be a little more careful, maybe…Or maybe she gives us a list, say ‘Well it could be one of five,’ I mean, y’know, I don’t know what she’s gonna do, but at some point we’re gonna see her cooperate…We say to Mom that you tell us the wrong name, and we’ll bring that guy in and we’ll do a blood test and that’s not Dad, you lose your welfare benefits…You lose your welfare benefits not till you tell us another name, but till we find out who Dad is, we establish it.

Rick Santorum proposing obligatory government paternity tests before single mothers can receive welfare, at an event in Pennsylvania in 1994. [source]

Just when I thought he couldn’t get any stupider…

(via falsesalvation)

Is there even a point to this other than to shame people?

(via boptomybeat)

This guy’s legit running for president though?

(via randomlancila)

This is hands-down one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever read in my whole life. Not to mention the implications this policy would have for rape-victims.

(via astringofpearls)

Rick Santorum wants to turn welfare offices into an episode of Maury. (b/c that’s how all The Poors are, right???)

(via ultraprism)

When it comes to 235-year-old United States, Santorum: You are not the president.

(via some-disgraced-cosmonaut)

There are so many things wrong with this, I don’t even know where to begin. I think a simple “Fuck this guy” will suffice. 

(via junkycosmonaut)

(Source: clenchuplegolas, via junkycosmonaut)

Filed under politics

14,561 notes

Birth Control 101 For Idiots

stfuconservatives:

prolongedeyecontact:

bemusedlybespectacled:

This is hormonal birth control.

As you can see on the box, you take exactly one pill per day. To make sure it works, you need to take one pill every day at the same time, or it stops working. You take only one pill, and you keep taking them regardless of what you are doing that day.

Hormonal birth control can be used to treat a lot of different diseases, like anemia caused by excessive menstruation. It is a prescription medication that can cost around $15-50 a month. Because it is a prescription medication, it should be covered by insurance, as it treats legitimate health problems.

This is Viagra.

It, too, can treat legitimate health problems like altitude sickness and pulmonary hypertension, but it is usually prescribed for erectile dysfunction. Unlike the Pill, Viagra is taken every time you want to have sex. A lot of health insurance companies cover Viagra, so it costs about as much as your co-pay.

This is a condom.

It is not a prescription medication, and has no health benefits (besides the prevention of STIs and pregnancy). Like Viagra, you must use one before you have sex: indeed, before each sex act. They cost about a dollar per condom.

This is Sandra Fluke.

She testified before a small, Democrat-led hearing after she was cut out of the actual birth control/insurance discussion. Her testimony was about a friend of hers who, because her insurance did not cover birth control, lost an ovary due to an ovarian cyst.

This somehow translates into “I, myself, personally, am having so much sex I can’t afford birth control, and so I want the government to pay for it.”

This is wrong for multiple reasons.

  1. It was about a friend, not her. To say her testimony was about her personally is factually incorrect.
  2. Sex had nothing to do with the testimony - her friend lost an ovary because of medical condition that was left untreated. A medical condition that was completely treatable, but wasn’t, because her insurance wouldn’t cover it. To say that her testimony was about her being “a slut” or “a prostitute” is factually incorrect.
  3. Even if she was having loads of sex, she would still only have one pill a day, not one pill per sex act, so to say “I’m having so much sex I can’t afford birth control” is completely erroneous. The Pill is not Viagra or condoms. To say that she is such “a slut” that she constantly needs more pills is factually incorrect.
  4. The current political debate is not “should the government pay for birth control?” The debate is “should insurance companies, that people and their employers pay for, on their own, be required to cover birth control?” To say that Sandra Fluke wants the government to pay for her birth control is factually incorrect.
  5. Religious organizations do not want to have birth control covered by their insurance, even for employees not of their faith, even if their employees never actually use their insurance to cover birth control. By this logic, they should also not pay their employees, because they could use that money to pay for birth control out of pocket. To say that this issue is about religious freedom and not about women’s health is disingenuous, as Ms. Fluke’s testimony demonstrates.

Hopefully this makes things a little clearer.

I really love this. Props for addressing all the common issues and for keeping the general info at the beginning non-gendered. I do wish we could have great teaching moments without falling into ableism, though. I don’t think people are being “idiots.” I think conservatives are choosing to remain willfully ignorant on the subject. 

I have yet to hear a single opposing argument on this subject that isn’t based around a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

-Joe 

Filed under politics health

42 notes

Andrew Breitbart, dead of natural causes at 43.

With a terrible feeling of pain and loss we announce the passing of Andrew Breitbart.

Andrew passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles.

We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.

Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love.

Andrew recently wrote a new conclusion to his book, Righteous Indignation:

I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and—famously—I enjoy making enemies.

Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I’ve lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I’ve gained hundreds, thousands—who knows?—of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night.

Andrew is at rest, yet the happy warrior lives on, in each of us.

I know we’re not supposed to speak ill of the dead but let’s not forget  this man’s reaction when Ted Kennedy died:

“For three hours, Breitbart unapologetically attacked Kennedy, calling him a “villain,” “a big ass motherf@#$er,” a “duplicitous bastard” and a “prick.” “I’ll shut my mouth for Carter. That’s just politics. Kennedy was a special pile of human excrement,” wrote Breitbart in one tweet.”

From: ThinkProgress

Anyway, condolences to his family.  43 if far too young to die. 

(Source: inothernews)

Filed under andrew breitbart politics news

8,710 notes

elledark:

Banksy on Advertizing“People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are “The Advertisers” and they are laughing at you.You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.”~ Banksy

elledark:

Banksy on Advertizing

“People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are “The Advertisers” and they are laughing at you.

You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.”

~ Banksy

Filed under cartoon ads politics

349 notes

elledark:

A Deadlier Threat Than TerrorismBe very scared. A killer stalks the U.S. public claiming, by recent estimates, 45,000 lives annually or one dead American about every 10 minutes. That’s 3,750 people, more than the 9/11 attacks, dying needlessly every single month.This shadowy killer is the lack of adequate health care in the U.S. Researchers from Harvard Medical School found in late 2009 that 45,000 people die unnecessarily every year due to lack of health insurance. Heres another stunning fact: In 2008, four times as many U.S. Army veterans died because they lacked health insurance than the total number of U.S. soldiers who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same period. That’s right: 2,266 veterans under the age of 65 died because they were uninsured.These are the facts. This is the reality. Osama Bin Laden and his rag-tag band of ‘terrorists’ have been responsible for the deaths of *far* fewer Americans than the present ‘health-care’ industry and the politicians who support it. The harm they have done to America far outstrips any external threat yet politicians continue to wrangle and score political points rather than agreeing there’s a serious problem in America that needs to be tackled while all the time ordinary people are dying .The very modest and limited health-care reforms that Obama proposed, which required a single-payer option and universal coverage to retain any credibility, were crippled beyond recognition by cynical republicans desperate to damage him for political gain and by the greed of big business protecting obscene levels of profit. Their personal interests were more important to them than people dying. By any reasonable standards, these are bad people. That was a bad thing to do. How can they possibly be allowed to get away with it ? Yet they will .There has been absolute hypocrisy at the very heart of American public debate over health care. It is the bedrock, fundamental duty of any administration to protect the lives of the people who elect it. If every minor ‘terrorist’ scare can dominate the news while a far more deadly danger is ignored what kind of mad Alice in Wonderland world are we living in ? Why do people put up with this ?Since theres a war on ‘terrorism’ and another on ‘drugs’ surely its not asking too much for a ‘war on inadequate health-care’ ? I guess that isn’t quite such a catchy sound-byte though. And maybe theres less profit to be made.

elledark:

A Deadlier Threat Than Terrorism

Be very scared. A killer stalks the U.S. public claiming, by recent estimates, 45,000 lives annually or one dead American about every 10 minutes. That’s 3,750 people, more than the 9/11 attacks, dying needlessly every single month.

This shadowy killer is the lack of adequate health care in the U.S. Researchers from Harvard Medical School found in late 2009 that 45,000 people die unnecessarily every year due to lack of health insurance. Heres another stunning fact: In 2008, four times as many U.S. Army veterans died because they lacked health insurance than the total number of U.S. soldiers who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same period. That’s right: 2,266 veterans under the age of 65 died because they were uninsured.

These are the facts. This is the reality. Osama Bin Laden and his rag-tag band of ‘terrorists’ have been responsible for the deaths of *far* fewer Americans than the present ‘health-care’ industry and the politicians who support it. The harm they have done to America far outstrips any external threat yet politicians continue to wrangle and score political points rather than agreeing there’s a serious problem in America that needs to be tackled while all the time ordinary people are dying .

The very modest and limited health-care reforms that Obama proposed, which required a single-payer option and universal coverage to retain any credibility, were crippled beyond recognition by cynical republicans desperate to damage him for political gain and by the greed of big business protecting obscene levels of profit. Their personal interests were more important to them than people dying. By any reasonable standards, these are bad people. That was a bad thing to do. How can they possibly be allowed to get away with it ? Yet they will .

There has been absolute hypocrisy at the very heart of American public debate over health care. It is the bedrock, fundamental duty of any administration to protect the lives of the people who elect it. If every minor ‘terrorist’ scare can dominate the news while a far more deadly danger is ignored what kind of mad Alice in Wonderland world are we living in ? Why do people put up with this ?

Since theres a war on ‘terrorism’ and another on ‘drugs’ surely its not asking too much for a ‘war on inadequate health-care’ ? I guess that isn’t quite such a catchy sound-byte though. And maybe theres less profit to be made.

Filed under writing politics